Visions in a Seer Stone

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Visions in a Seer Stone

Post by hauslern »

William Davis is the author of Visions of a Seer Stone which looks into the making of the Book of Mormon.

Gospel Tangents has uploaded two extensive interviews with the author:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_-ejh48aw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuupXUtMq2M

Brian Hales did a critical review of his book in The Interpreter.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... eer-stone/

Davis on Facebook told me "His review of my book? Yes. It's filled with misrepresentations of my work. In my interactions with him on social media, he does not seem to understand (or even care) that he is spreading false information about my research. It's disappointing, but it's also out of my control."

This is interesting book. Instead of debating the timing of the revival question it examines what type of preaching Smith was exposed to.

Some LDS have raved on about the low level of education Smith had. Davis gives us insights into informal education he got.
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1152
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Visions in a Seer Stone

Post by Rivendale »

The author and Brian Hales had an intensive back and forth on Facebook a while back. The tldr version is similar to all other interactions with apologists. Disregarding previous scholars that show how this could have been done and entrenching.
Marcus
God
Posts: 4996
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Visions in a Seer Stone

Post by Marcus »

i'm sure people have seen this, but there was a great comment to Hales' interpreter review article about this:
Brandon Kay Shumway on September 7, 2020 at 3:50 pm said:

Hales seems to be responding to arguments not found in the book more than he is responding to the contents of the book itself. The author, Bill Davis, has referred to this review as a misrepresentation and inaccurate reading of his work and I agree with that analysis. Hales has suggested that the assumptions listed here should have been addressed in the peer review process but I would like to highlight some of the reasons why this is NOT a reasonable expectation on purely scholarly grounds. He asks for evidence for the following 5 “assumptions”:

• Nephi/Moroni/Mormon would not have used summary headings in their writings.
While the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, demanding that a scholar respond to an argument from ignorance is not typical in peer review. If you are aware of published work showing that there was in fact similar textual patterns in ancient American texts then this would be an appropriate objection but this has not been demonstrated. Even better, if you could find a metallic codex of similar length written in a language that could be described as reformed Egyptian with such textual features included. This would support your assumptions much better and would be much stronger grounds for insisting that a scholar show why he has deviated from published literature.

• In 1829, Joseph Smith possessed the creativity to author a complex 270,000 word book.
What is the established methodology that you feel has been forgone here? Is there a systematic test for whether an author had the intellectual capacity to produce a given text? Has that test been shown to have such deterministic value in academia that it should be demanded as a pre-requisite to any discussion of possible structural influences?

• By 1829, Joseph Smith produced and embedded thousands of outlines (“heads”) and expansive stories, sermons, names, plotlines, geographical details in his brain by 1829.
By what methodology do you suggest that we provide evidence for the contents of Joseph’s mind? Is there a process in academia for doing so which you feel has been bypassed? Are there examples of other scholars who have felt a need to investigate this question? If not, are you suggesting that Davis ought to have developed a new branch of science dedicated to disproving your assumptions about the limits of human capacity for narrative creation?

• Joseph Smith had developed a level of oratorical excellence by 1829 so he could dictate nearly 7000 long complex sentences that were so refined not one needed resequencing.
You and I have discussed this issue at length but suffice it to say that you would first need to be aware of some academic publications commenting on the frequency of the need for resequencing sentences when given in semi-extemporaneous dictation. To determine what level of oratorical excellence would be required to perform this specific task it would be useful to establish a baseline and range of variation. This is quite different from your reliance on examples from authors using formal writing processes that you provide in your review. The fact that you thought this was a relevant commentary shows that you do not yet grasp the difference between formal writing methods and the sort of process Davis is describing in his book. I have already suggested ways you might go about generating scholarship that might be more informative to the discussion but this does not appear to be of interest to you. You are resting instead on unproven assumptions which are not typically relevant to the peer review process. Publish first (in academic journals) then subject new scholarship to that standard established through the academic process.

• Joseph Smith could mentally format the recitation in real time to include hundreds of chiasms and other parallelism.
This is an interesting question which may be worth asking but was outside the scope of the work produced by Davis here. I have demonstrated that producing complex chiasmus is possible through just such a method but that was the express purpose of my effort. Again, I am willing to replicate the complex features of any 4,000 word section of the Book of Mormon text containing specific features you feel would have been impossible for human capabilities. To hold Davis responsible for providing this type of evidence specifically shows a basic misunderstanding about the intent of the book and the conclusions actually being made. If you would like to attempt to rephrase those critiques in ways that rely on established academic methods then they would be more likely to move the discussion forwards instead of being an example of the unscholarly standards often applied in religious polemic discussion.

Reply ↓
and Hales', in my opinion pretty weak response:
Brian C. Hales on September 8, 2020 at 10:40 am said:

I appreciate Brandon’s pushback here. In fact, I appreciate anyone who is willing to address, even tangentially, the actual mechanics of dictating nearly 7000 very longs sentences (in less than three months) that are so refined that none need re-sequencing. (Joseph Smith’s 269,320 word dictation is remarkable in many other ways, but this is the easiest characteristic to talk about.)

Brandon writes: “Hales seems to be responding to arguments not found in the book.” This is mostly true. Davis doesn’t “argue” that:

• Nephi/Mormon/Moroni would never have thought of using summary headings in their writings.
• Joseph Smith developed outlines and content for an incredibly long novel between 1823 and 1829.
• Joseph Smith memorized so much data that only a type of pattern memory system could have allowed instant recall during the dictation.
• Joseph Smith dictated final draft sentences in a single attempt, sentences that were in a non-standard vernacular, with multiple layers of meaning, and hundreds of parallelisms.

Davis doesn’t “argue” these points; he simply accepts them as valid with little or no historical supportive evidence.
Using scientific method, strong theories will account for most of the variables in an issue as they describe a plausible explanation. I argue that in Visions in a Seer Stone, the most important variables are assumed rather than historically documented, which diminishes the value of the over all theory. I also think good peer review might have picked up on this prior to publication.

As far as the bullet points—I’ll leave those to readers to ponder and contemplate in the context of my review.

Thanks!

Brian Hales

Reply ↓
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6107
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Visions in a Seer Stone

Post by Kishkumen »

Brian Hales is a nice guy, but boy is he thick when it comes to apologetics. This is not to say that he never comes up with anything of value. Don Bradley will tell you that he had genuine insights in his work on polygamy, for example. That said, in apologetics, he usually finds his hobby horse and just rides, rides, rides that thing all the day long. He has no rebuttal other than to repeat the same things over and over again.

In the translation of the Book of Mormon, he just rattles off statistics and exclaims, "miraculous!"
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Visions in a Seer Stone

Post by hauslern »

Here is another interview with William Davis dealing with what education Smith would have been exposed to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRN3Ska_sak&t=989s
Post Reply